Cultural Ecosystem of the Seediq’s Traditional Weaving Techniques—A Comparison of the Learning Differences Between Urban and Indigenous Communities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting examination of the different ways in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Taiwan learn about traditional Seediq weaving techniques and incorporate this learning into their lives and communities. It provides some important insights into the ways that these learning differences can complement and support each other. However, there are several areas where the article can be strengthened to increase its understandability and impact.
Language usage
It is recommended that the authors find an English language editor to revise the text. The Abstract, in particular, requires editing to reflect the scope and significance of the research findings. While there are many grammatical and syntax errors throughout, other passages that should be rewritten are in section 3.2 on Research Method and section 4.2 on Cultural Ecosystem of the Seediq Traditional Weaving Techniques.
The article is not consistent in its references to Indigenous peoples. The norm in current academic writing is to capitalize “Indigenous” and to add the word “peoples” after “Indigenous”, particularly as in the case of Taiwan, there are several tribes of Indigenous peoples.
Organization of text
The references to Seka Bakan are confusing as a result of inconsistent language use. The first reference to Seka Bakan on line 47 should include information on her background, which is now scattered throughout the article. Line 47 suggests that she is an individual from the Seediq tribe but we do not get the information that she was hired by the government to teach traditional weaving skills until line 242. It is also unclear in lines 242 to 244 whether Seka Bakan is female, male or an organization providing teaching services. This confusion is compounded when, at lines 150, Seka Bakan is referred to in the plural as “instructors”, rather than singular “instructor” who “would accompany their grandmother”, rather than “her grandmother”. (Also the word “good” after “grandmother” on line 150 makes no sense in this context.) Further information about Seka Bakan is also provided on lines 411 to 414, in footnote 5 and in the end note labelled “**Note” at lines 585 to 587. All this information should be provided near the beginning of the article to clearly explain who Seka Bakan is, what are her background and qualifications, and what role she played in the teaching of traditional weaving skills at the two field sites.
The information on Seediq weaving techniques in section 2 is interesting, but is sometimes confusing. For example, the list of tools used on lines 112 and 113 is not meaningful for readers who are unfamiliar with weaving, whether traditional or contemporary. For example, what is a “thread heald rod”? Or is this a typo? It would also be helpful if the explanations of the various steps were linked to the photos – for example, “warping” at line 24 should include a statement such as “as illustrated in Figure 2-6” to help the reader to understand. This should also be done with the descriptions of the different types of weaves at lines 133-134, and with the somewhat confusing reference to “dual work” at line 127, which possibly refers to the need for the weaver to sit on the ground and to anchor the loom with her body (as illustrated in Figure 2-7?).
In section 2.1.4, the text is not always organized logically. For example, the sentence on lines 152 to 154 would most logically follow the sentence on lines 148 and 149, which describes how young Atayal girls traditionally learned weaving skills.
In addition, information in section 2.1.4 would seem to fit better in section 2.1.3. For example, the sentences on lines 167 to 174, which describe weaving challenges, should be moved to section 2.1.3 and combined with the descriptions from lines 127 to 132. This would also eliminate some repetition: for example the consequences of making a mistake, which are discussed both on lines 124 to 126 and on lines 170 to 172.
In Section 2.2, endnote 16 seems to be missing.
In Section 3.3.1 from lines 313 to 316, the description refers to “knitting tools” and “knitting” several times. Is this referring to “weaving tools” and “weaving”? It is very odd that the terminology suddenly changes because up until this point, the article refers only to weaving, which is a different skill entirely from knitting.
The title of sub-section 4.2.1 is incomplete.
In Section 4.2 the sentence on lines 388 and 389 is repeated on lines 469 and 470. It is also unclear what the sentence is trying to say. Is it about Taiwanese Indigenous people? Taiwanese Indigenous art? Taiwanese traditional weaving techniques? In the description that follows, in lines 389 to 395, it would be useful to include a reference to Figure 4.1, which is presumably a pictorial description of the cultural ecosystem in which traditional weaving is embedded. Also, at line 501 there is a reference to a “map” of the Indigenous weaving cultural ecosystem. Is this a reference to Figure 4.1? If so, it should be made explicit. Also in section 4.2 on lines 395 to 397, a brief mention is made of the government’s identification of the Seediq weaving techniques as part of Taiwan’s cultural heritage and of how this has changed the cultural ecosystem. It would be useful to include a description of how cultural ecosystem has changed. What are the new elements that have been introduced? Are these the elements that are depicted in figure 4.2? If this is the case, the analysis in sub-sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 should be set up a bit more clearly so that the reader is made aware of the authors’ intention to map these changes, both in the text and in the figures.
In Section 4.2.4 the first sentence is very unclear (lines 491 to 493). Also, as mentioned previously, there is a need to identify in the text at line 501, the figure that is being referred to as a map. Later, at line 507, there is a reference to “On the right side”. Is this referring to Figure 4.2? If so, it should be stated explicitly.
Methodological description
The section on Research Method – 3.2 – is not only problematic from a linguistic point of view. None of the sentences in from lines 232 to 239 are complete: both subjects and sometimes verbs are missing. In addition, the information in the endnote labelled “** Note” that appears at the end of the article should be incorporated into the text of section 3.2. At present, when the reader gets to lines 366, 369 and 376, where parenthetical references are made to (U2), (U1) and (I1), one has no idea to what the authors are referring. There needs to be a more complete description of the interview methodology and of the labelling of interview subjects in the Research Method section – not in an endnote.
Conclusions
The descriptions of the different ways in which Indigenous and urban communities receive and react to instruction on traditional weaving techniques are interesting, but based on what is said in previous sections about the changing cultural ecosystem in which traditional weaving techniques are embedded, it is somewhat unclear as to what these differences mean. Do they reflect, as the authors conclude, a means of rebuilding the traditional cultural ecosystem? Or do they represent the elements of a new cultural ecosystem? It would be useful for the authors to explore this idea, since cultures are never static and the issue in this case may be how to preserve and support elements of a traditional cultural ecosystem within the modern realities of Taiwanese society. Will “rebuilding” result in complete revival of the traditional cultural ecosystem or the “building” of a new one?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: This is an interesting examination of the different ways in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Taiwan learn about traditional Seediq weaving techniques and incorporate this learning into their lives and communities. It provides some important insights into the ways that these learning differences can complement and support each other. However, there are several areas where the article can be strengthened to increase its understandability and impact.
Response 1: Thanks for the invaluable comments on this manuscript. Based on the comments, this manuscript has been revised accordingly.
Point 2: Language usage
It is recommended that the authors find an English language editor to revise the text. The Abstract, in particular, requires editing to reflect the scope and significance of the research findings. While there are many grammatical and syntax errors throughout, other passages that should be rewritten are in section 3.2 on Research Method and section 4.2 on Cultural Ecosystem of the Seediq Traditional Weaving Techniques.
The article is not consistent in its references to Indigenous peoples. The norm in current academic writing is to capitalize “Indigenous” and to add the word “peoples” after “Indigenous”, particularly as in the case of Taiwan, there are several tribes of Indigenous peoples..
Response 2: Thanks for the reviewers’ comments:
1) The manuscript has been revised and proofread by professional English native speakers.
2) The Abstract has been added with the research scope, findings and importance of analysis and research, according to the reviewers’ comments.
3) The grammatical and syntax errors in Section 3.2 on Research Method and Section 4.2 have been revised, according to the reviewers’ comments.
4) The word “Indigenous” in the paper has been capitalized.
Language usage
Point 3: Organization of text
The references to Seka Bakan are confusing as a result of inconsistent language use. The first reference to Seka Bakan on line 47 should include information on her background, which is now scattered throughout the article. Line 47 suggests that she is an individual from the Seediq tribe but we do not get the information that she was hired by the government to teach traditional weaving skills until line 242. It is also unclear in lines 242 to 244 whether Seka Bakan is female, male or an organization providing teaching services. This confusion is compounded when, at lines 150, Seka Bakan is referred to in the plural as “instructors”, rather than singular “instructor” who “would accompany their grandmother”, rather than “her grandmother”. (Also the word “good” after “grandmother” on line 150 makes no sense in this context.) Further information about Seka Bakan is also provided on lines 411 to 414, in footnote 5 and in the end note labelled “**Note” at lines 585 to 587. All this information should be provided near the beginning of the article to clearly explain who Seka Bakan is, what are her background and qualifications, and what role she played in the teaching of traditional weaving skills at the two field sites.
Response 3:
1) The author is sincerely sorry for the ambiguous description of Seta Bakan and the consequent doubt resulted from it. Seta Bakan is the preserver of traditional Seediq weaving registered by the government, and instructor of weaving techniques for the two communities in this study, in which she plays an important role. Her information, background and qualifications, and the role she played in the teaching of traditional weaving skills at the two field sites have been elaborated in section 1.1 Research Motives.
2) The ambiguous relationship between Seta Bakan and her grandmother in Section 2.1.4 has been clarified.
Point 4: The information on Seediq weaving techniques in section 2 is interesting, but is sometimes confusing. For example, the list of tools used on lines 112 and 113 is not meaningful for readers who are unfamiliar with weaving, whether traditional or contemporary. For example, what is a “thread heald rod”? Or is this a typo? It would also be helpful if the explanations of the various steps were linked to the photos – for example, “warping” at line 24 should include a statement such as “as illustrated in Figure 2-6” to help the reader to understand. This should also be done with the descriptions of the different types of weaves at lines 133-134, and with the somewhat confusing reference to “dual work” at line 127, which possibly refers to the need for the weaver to sit on the ground and to anchor the loom with her body (as illustrated in Figure 2-7?)
Response 4:
1) The excessive description of the tools in Section 2.1.2 Seediq weaving techniques has been simplified. The information regarding weaving tools and different types of weaving skills has been added in Figure 2-1 to Figure 2-10 to enhance comprehension.
2) Section 2.1.3, lines 133-134 “dual work” intends to indicate that after the warp yarn is finished, two persons are needed to put the yarn on the weaving box and then start weaving,the paper has revised.
Point 5:In section 2.1.4, the text is not always organized logically. For example, the sentence on lines 152 to 154 would most logically follow the sentence on lines 148 and 149, which describes how young Atayal girls traditionally learned weaving skills.
Response 5: In section 2.1.4, what is unclear logically and grammatically in the first paragraph has been revised. Please refer to the paper.
Point 6: In addition, information in section 2.1.4 would seem to fit better in section 2.1.3. For example, the sentences on lines 167 to 174, which describe weaving challenges, should be moved to section 2.1.3 and combined with the descriptions from lines 127 to 132. This would also eliminate some repetition: for example, the consequences of making a mistake, which are discussed both on lines 124 to 126 and on lines 170 to 172.
In Section 2.2, endnote 16 seems to be missing.
Response 6:
1) Regarding the repeated information in section 2.1.3 lines 127 to 132, and section 2.1.4 lines 167 to 174, the author believes that section 2.1.4 highlights the relationship between weaving and women so it is better to put the above information in 2.1.4. The repeated part in 2.1.3 has been deleted.
2) In Section 2.2, endnote 16 has been revised and added.
Point 7: In Section 3.3.1 from lines 313 to 316, the description refers to “knitting tools” and “knitting” several times. Is this referring to “weaving tools” and “weaving”? It is very odd that the terminology suddenly changes because up until this point, the article refers only to weaving, which is a different skill entirely from knitting.
Response 7: Thanks for the reviewers’ comments. The “Seediq's traditional technique” in this article refers to weaving, and the erroneous “knitting” has been revised.
Point 8: The title of sub-section 4.2.1 is incomplete.
In Section 4.2 the sentence on lines 388 and 389 is repeated on lines 469 and 470. It is also unclear what the sentence is trying to say. Is it about Taiwanese Indigenous people? Taiwanese Indigenous art? Taiwanese traditional weaving techniques? In the description that follows, in lines 389 to 395, it would be useful to include a reference to Figure 4.1, which is presumably a pictorial description of the cultural ecosystem in which traditional weaving is embedded. Also, at line 501 there is a reference to a “map” of the Indigenous weaving cultural ecosystem. Is this a reference to Figure 4.1? If so, it should be made explicit. Also in section 4.2 on lines 395 to 397, a brief mention is made of the government’s identification of the Seediq weaving techniques as part of Taiwan’s cultural heritage and of how this has changed the cultural ecosystem. It would be useful to include a description of how cultural ecosystem has changed. What are the new elements that have been introduced? Are these the elements that are depicted in figure 4.2? If this is the case, the analysis in sub-sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 should be set up a bit more clearly so that the reader is made aware of the authors’ intention to map these changes, both in the text and in the figures.
Response 8:
1) The incomplete title of sub-section 4.2.1 has been revised as: 4.2.1 Traditional weaving that presents a complete cultural ecosystem.
2) The lines 388 and 389 in the original text Table 4-1: Dual-Community’s Learning feelings, intend to summarize section 4.1 in a table for better comprehension. The cultural ecosystem in section 4.2 intends to better describe the linkage between the traditional cultural ecosystem of the Indigenous people and the cultural ecosystem of the two communities. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 have been combined as one, and Figure 4.1 is followed by written explanation for better comprehension. Please refer to the revised Figure 4.1. The linkage between Indigenous and urban communities for a traditional weaving, as based cultural ecosystem.
Point 9: In Section 4.2.4 the first sentence is very unclear (lines 491 to 493). Also, as mentioned previously, there is a need to identify in the text at line 501, the figure that is being referred to as a map. Later, at line 507, there is a reference to “On the right side”. Is this referring to Figure 4.2? If so, it should be stated explicitly.
Response 9:
1) Section 4.2.4 begins by describing the close relationship between the Indigenous cultural heritage in Taiwan and nature and ancestral spirit. Given that it is necessary to view and understand Indigenous cultural heritage in a holistic way, this article presents the close relationship between traditional cultural heritage (weaving) and cultural ecosystem with Figure 4.1 (Please refer to the revised figure).
2) The original line 507 aimed to explain the meaning of Figure 4.1. The author is sorry for the unclear description and has revised it.
Point 10: Methodological description
The section on Research Method – 3.2 – is not only problematic from a linguistic point of view. None of the sentences in from lines 232 to 239 are complete: both subjects and sometimes verbs are missing. In addition, the information in the endnote labelled “** Note” that appears at the end of the article should be incorporated into the text of section 3.2. At present, when the reader gets to lines 366, 369 and 376, where parenthetical references are made to (U2), (U1) and (I1), one has no idea to what the authors are referring. There needs to be a more complete description of the interview methodology and of the labelling of interview subjects in the Research Method section – not in an endnote.
Response 10: The author appreciates the reviewers for pointing out that the lack of grammar in 3.2 research method, which has been corrected accordingly. The information of endnote, including the interview reference code, has been included in section 3.2.
Point 11:Conclusions
The descriptions of the different ways in which Indigenous and urban communities receive and react to instruction on traditional weaving techniques are interesting, but based on what is said in previous sections about the changing cultural ecosystem in which traditional weaving techniques are embedded, it is somewhat unclear as to what these differences mean. Do they reflect, as the authors conclude, a means of rebuilding the traditional cultural ecosystem? Or do they represent the elements of a new cultural ecosystem? It would be useful for the authors to explore this idea, since cultures are never static and the issue in this case may be how to preserve and support elements of a traditional cultural ecosystem within the modern realities of Taiwanese society. Will “rebuilding” result in complete revival of the traditional cultural ecosystem or the “building” of a new one?
Response 11: Thanks for the reviewers’ comments on the descriptions of the different ways in which Indigenous and urban communities receive and react to instruction on traditional weaving techniques.
One of the key points of this study is to analyze the cultural ecosystem based on traditional weaving, which is strongly linked with Gaya, natural knowledge, social interaction and other cultural elements. However, due to the change of social patterns, traditional weaving is on the verge of disappearance, with the original strong link weakened or even ruptured. This case study shows that unlike traditional society, the current society can accept and attract learning opportunities for different ethnic groups that complement, support and stimulate indigenous communities. The weaving learning in both urban and indigenous communities can contribute to cultural heritage and initiate the re-connection of cultural ecosystems. Whether the traditional cultural ecosystem can be fully rejuvenated remains to be observed. For the above information, please refer to the supplementary description in the part of conclusion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper explores the cognitive differences between urban and indigenous communities in learning the same weaving techniques, the linkage between indigenous weaving techniques and cultural ecosystem, and the potential impact of urban weaving communities on native communities.
The topic is very interesting and the paper is well organised and developed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1:
The paper explores the cognitive differences between urban and indigenous communities in learning the same weaving techniques, the linkage between indigenous weaving techniques and cultural ecosystem, and the potential impact of urban weaving communities on native communities.
The topic is very interesting and the paper is well organised and developed.
Response 1: Thank you for your recognition .
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised article is very much improved and very much clearer. Congratulations to the authors for undertaking the suggested revisions in such a thorough manner.
I still found a few minor stylistic and grammatical errors that should be corrected.
At line 23 in the Abstract, "She" should be "she".
At line 122, the words "put an" should be inserted before the word "emphasis".
At line 126, the word "utux" is not capitalized as it is in the rest of the paragraph. To be consistent, it should be.
At line 148, the word "it" should be inserted before the word "can".
At line 153, the word "to" should be inserted before "disassemble".
At line 167, the word "shawl" should be "shawls".
At line 176, the word "instructors" should be "instructor", and the word "their" should be "her".
At line 180, the word "waving" should be "weaving".
At line 207, in the title, the word "Waving" should be "Weaving".
At line 235, the word "name" should be changed to "to name".
In the label of Figure 2.12 the word "fast" whould be "while", I think.
At line 248, there should be a space between "Indigenous" and "people".
At line 283, the word "person" should be inserted after "Indigenous".
At line 297, the phrase "to avoid students to" should be changed to "to prevent students from".
At line 317, there should be a space between "Indigenous" and "tribe".
At line 346, there should be a period after "tools", and a new sentence should begin with "When an urban male student". Also, in this sentence, there should be no space in the word "tool".
At line 348, the word "knit" should be "weave".
At line 368, the word "observe" should be "observes".
At lines 387 to 389, the sentence would read more clearly as follows: "They learn what the teacher teaches in the same way that their elders learned weaving -- by recollecting what kind of cloth their family has, and learning and reproducing the demonstrated techniques".
At line 391, the word "meaning" is repeated twice.
At line 409, the word "the" should be deleted before the word "autonomy".
At line 417, the word "compliment" should be "compliments".
At line 445, there should be a space between "hemp" and "are".
At line 457, the sentence should end after "weaver", and a new sentence beginning with "As skilled women ..." started.
At line 466, the word "indigenous" should be capitalized, and the word "peoples" inserted after it.
At line 531, there should be space between "Indigenous" and "people".
At line 533, the word "people" should be inserted after "Indigenous".
At line 548, the word "people" should be inserted after "Indigenous" (capitalized).
At lines 550 and 551, capitals are not needed for the words "natural", "personal", "generational" and "social".
At line 580, the word "the" should be inserted before "case".
At line 649, the word "governmental" should be "government".
At lines 649 to 652, the sentence would be clearer as follows: "When the Seediq tribe learned that non-Indigenous people had been learning weaving for years, their ethnic awareness was stimulated, and they became motivated to learn and think about their own culture."
Author Response
Point 1: The revised article is very much improved and very much clearer. Congratulations to the authors for undertaking the suggested revisions in such a thorough manner.I still found a few minor stylistic and grammatical errors that should be corrected.
Response 1: Thanks for your recognition and invaluable comments on this manuscript. Based on the comments, this manuscript has been revised accordingly, please refer to the revised manuscript. Thank you once again.
